Home » Forums » Daily Paul Liberty Forum

Why are the Iowa delegate percentages inconsistent with votes?

Submitted by erastus on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:45
in
0 votes

CNN posted the popular votes and the number of delegates assigned. Can someone explain why the delegate percentages are so different from the vote percentages?

For example: Huckabee got 34% of the votes, but 46% of the delegates. (There are 37 assigned and 3 unassigned, so I divided 17 by 37, not 40).

Huckabee - 34%; 17 out of 37 delegates = 45.9%, (+11.9%)
Tomney - 25%; 12 out of 37 = 32.4%, (+7.4%)
Thompson - 13%; 3 out of 37 = 8.1%, (-4.9%)
McCain - 13%; 3 out of 37 = 8.1% (-4.9%)
Paul - 10%; 2 out of 37 = 5.4%, (-4.6%)
Giuliani - 4%; 0 out of 37 = 0%, (-4.0%)

I'm shockied that they give extra delegates to the 1st and 2nd place candidates and take them from the others.

»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Become a delegate or continue to lose

Submitted by Boru on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:03.

We need to fight the other kinds of vote fraud too!

Or we will lose.

What we got was a Magic Show

Submitted by iwontbackdown on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:57.

From Bev Harris, the Board Administrator @ blackboxvoting.org

I literally laughed out loud at the magic show the Republicans are putting on.
"We will be very transparent and report in live time on our Web site."
"Well not the details, precincts will come after the totals are announced " (think about this folks: You can't GET the totals without the precinct results. They're doing it out of order)
And then:
"Oh gee the web site isn't posting any results after all"
And then:
"Hello we are the networks and with 40% in we are projecting [note subtle misuse of language]
"Huckabee won Iowa"
[Correct language would say "we are projecting that Huckabee will win Iowa -- and not a single iota of results had been PUBLICLY released.]
Next we see the only live coverage, done by CSPAN, in which McCain thumps everyone.
Instead of counting in public, they had the public leave the room before the counting and things are being sorted out of view and counted under chairs and in in corners, with no public view of the data. This was done by perfectly nice people. Problem was, they didn't provide them with anything remotely sensible for a workspace -- like, oh, say a table and some chairs.
Next, we see a cell phone situation, which then inexplicably calls him back to tell him the call did not go through. Baffled, he says "we're done. I think."
More happy gesticulating by the networks pronouncing winners with great precision.
Still, at this time, not a thing has thus far been reported in "real time."
Then a nearly filled in map appears, but without telling us the percentage of precincts reporting and with no precinct data.
It's not up to the citizens to prove fraud. What we need is a system where the votes are counted in public (they were not, in Carroll County), and where we can check the precinct results against the reported precinct results.
What we got was a magic show.
Posted on Thursday, January 3, 2008 - 8:57 pm

Are residents of New Hampshire going to DEMAND TRANSPARENCY, because it did not seem apparent in Iowa.
Or are they just going to allow the GOP to just "shoo the public away?"
Read chronological reporting via comments here:
http://www.bbvforums.org/...

Bookmark/Search this post with:

‹ Mathematically Projected Final Results for Iowa Post your Well Wishes to New Hampshire Here! ›

Well

Submitted by jumpyg1258 on Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:50.

Well it is probably all depending on how many districts they won, not percentages.